I thought that I had switched to the digest but I guess that the "To:"
bypasses that. Well, I may as well take the opportunity to throw out one
more thought before I depart.

First of all I can't find the word concordism in the dictionary or my
spell checker so "Google" helped me out with the following definition:

"scientific and theological views are interpretative methodologies that
carry equal weight and their conclusions must be reconciled"

Did this group make that up? I see a lot of strange words here.

Anyhow, I still feel that those on this list lean over backwards to
avoid giving the Bible any slack whatsoever. The absolutely last thing
to be considered by most is that it is inspired by God and may have more
to it than just an interesting story made up by people to fit their
culture and taken from the myths of others. I have tried searching for
these related myths and cannot find anything like Genesis 1. You guys
even argue about whether a nut may have been considered to be a fruit by
the early Jews. I think that sort of discussion is totally off the wall.

Could we just consider for a moment the possibility that most of the
Bible really was inspired by God? Let's make believe for a moment that
it is some 4000 (or name your number) years ago and God told Moses or
somebody else who told Moses. Imagine him stumbling down the mountain
trying to figure out what this explanation of the Creation of the
universe meant and how to explain it to others.

I can easily envision Genesis 1 as the result. Imperfect, but containing
an amazing number of features which "hold water" today. Sure you can
pick at scientific details -- but it was told as history (God's History
of His creation) not science.

The end of the road with this scientific cynicism is total non belief in
my estimation. First the classification of old testament myths; then the
debunking of OT miracles; then the same for the NT; then rejection of
the NT parts that support the OT; then rejection of NT miracles, finally
the rejection of the resurrection and finally nothing is left.

I admit to being extreme with the above statements, but where does it
end?

Instead of all the negativism, is there nobody on this list who sees
more than just a bunch of neat theological stories in the OT?

I don't suggest that the Bible be taken as an infallible book that must
be taken always literally -- but I reject the opposite extreme of
rejection of a Biblical chapter out of hand if anybody can can find any
discrepancies with the latest scientific notions.

Let me emphacize that I firmly believe in some type of evolution. I do
not accept the Bible as infallible and I am not YEC sandbagger -- or
anything like a concordism-monger. I may be a bit to open minded for
this group, I think. (What they say is -- so open minded that his brains
fall out?) ;)

Walt

Nuff' said. Have a neat time.

Walt

Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> Many thanks. I was worried in case annyone felt they could be knocked down
> if they said something "wrong".
>
> I think the worst kind of concordism is prefereable to YEC and someone
> breaking out of YEC might use that as a staging post.
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> To: "Glenn Morton" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>; "Jim Eisele"
> <jeisele@starpower.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things
> previously)
>
> > I have to apologize to Michael and others. I misread what he said and I
> > felt he directed his critism directly at me and singled me out as not
> > paret of the "regulars". (Two reasons are 1. Jim and I were the ones
> > listed in the "TO" area and 2. alsost all of the attached exchange was
> > between Jim and me.)
> >
> > Anyhow I was wrong.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Glenn Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > > >Behalf Of Walter Hicks
> > > >Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:30 PM
> > >
> > > >> But if it is a regular e.g. Glenn, Jon. George, Howard etc we can be
> more
> > > >> agressive and shoot from the hip. I dont think I could unsettle them
> in
> > > >> their faith, but I still need to be reasonably polite. I can be
> robust.
> > > >
> > > >I take offense at this! If this is some sort of a club where the elite
> > > >have the only opinions that are valid,
> > >
> > > Let me differ a bit, Walter. I don't think anyone thinks my views are
> > > valid, nor do I feel a part of some elite group. I am just someone
> trying to
> > > figure this world out and learn as much as I can about as much as I can
> > > along the way.
> > >
> > > The one criticism that is valid, is that I do shoot--whether from the
> hip or
> > > not is debatable. I love rousing debates in which someone teaches
> something
> > > new or makes me better at the subject.
> > >
> > > glenn
> > >
> > > see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm> > > for lots of creation/evolution information
> > > anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
> > > personal stories of struggle
> >
> > --
> > ===================================
> > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> >
> > In any consistent theory, there must
> > exist true but not provable statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> >
> > You can only find the truth with logic
> > If you have already found the truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
> >
> >

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)

You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================